Life the Universe and Time

robin.pain@tesco.net · Apr 1, 2004

If you take some delta function of period T:-

| | |
.... | | | ...

It expresses all the frequencies from 1/T up to infinity i.e. all the
lower frequencies are missing, so you increase the period:-

| |
.... | | ...

and thus include "more of the universe" until you leave a single
spike:-

.
.
.
|
|
|
.... |

of infinite height/area and you have expressed the whole universe from
DC to infinity, now put the spike on its side:-

... ________________________________ ...

and again you have the whole universe i.e. nothing, the vacuum that is
nothing and everything at the same time.

Robin

John Woodgate · Apr 1, 2004

I read in sci.electronics.design that robin.pain@tesco.net
<robin.pain@tesco.net> wrote (in <bd24a397.0404010252.2ea6d795@posting.g
oogle.com&gt

about 'Life the Universe and Time', on Thu, 1 Apr 2004:

and again you have the whole universe i.e. nothing, the vacuum that is
nothing and everything at the same time.

And what useful deductions can you make from that? Use the widest
possible definition of 'useful' that doesn't include 'delude people as
to the magnitude of one's erudition'.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

Bob Stephens · Apr 1, 2004

On Thu, 1 Apr 2004 12:10:57 +0100, John Woodgate wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that robin.pain@tesco.net
robin.pain@tesco.net> wrote (in <bd24a397.0404010252.2ea6d795@posting.g
oogle.com&gt about 'Life the Universe and Time', on Thu, 1 Apr 2004:

and again you have the whole universe i.e. nothing, the vacuum that is
nothing and everything at the same time.

And what useful deductions can you make from that? Use the widest
possible definition of 'useful' that doesn't include 'delude people as
to the magnitude of one's erudition'.

Hmm... DPATTMOOE - We'll have to add that one to the lexicon

Active8 · Apr 1, 2004

On Thu, 1 Apr 2004 12:10:57 +0100, John Woodgate wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that robin.pain@tesco.net
robin.pain@tesco.net> wrote (in <bd24a397.0404010252.2ea6d795@posting.g
oogle.com&gt about 'Life the Universe and Time', on Thu, 1 Apr 2004:

and again you have the whole universe i.e. nothing, the vacuum that is
nothing and everything at the same time.

And what useful deductions can you make from that? Use the widest
possible definition of 'useful' that doesn't include 'delude people as
to the magnitude of one's erudition'.

That the OP's tripping?
--
Best Regards,
Mike

JeffM · Apr 1, 2004

John Woodgate · Apr 1, 2004

I read in sci.electronics.design that JeffM <jeffm_@email.com> wrote (in
<f8b945bc.0404011054.527e07c8@posting.google.com&gt

about 'Life the
Universe and Time', on Thu, 1 Apr 2004:

42

XLII
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

Bob Stephens · Apr 1, 2004

On Thu, 1 Apr 2004 20:29:09 +0100, John Woodgate wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that JeffM <jeffm_@email.com> wrote (in
f8b945bc.0404011054.527e07c8@posting.google.com&gt about 'Life the
Universe and Time', on Thu, 1 Apr 2004:
42

XLII

101010

Active8 · Apr 1, 2004

On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 19:45:32 GMT, Bob Stephens wrote:

On Thu, 1 Apr 2004 20:29:09 +0100, John Woodgate wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that JeffM <jeffm_@email.com> wrote (in
f8b945bc.0404011054.527e07c8@posting.google.com&gt about 'Life the
Universe and Time', on Thu, 1 Apr 2004:
42

XLII

101010

0x2a

052

1 base 42

anyone care to try for sexegesimal?
--
Best Regards,
Mike

John Woodgate · Apr 1, 2004

I read in sci.electronics.design that Active8 <reply2group@ndbbm.net>
wrote (in <jynzze9lpady.dlg@news.individual.net&gt

about 'Life the
Universe and Time', on Thu, 1 Apr 2004:

On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 19:45:32 GMT, Bob Stephens wrote:

On Thu, 1 Apr 2004 20:29:09 +0100, John Woodgate wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that JeffM <jeffm_@email.com> wrote (in
f8b945bc.0404011054.527e07c8@posting.google.com&gt about 'Life the
Universe and Time', on Thu, 1 Apr 2004:
42

XLII

101010

0x2a

052

1 base 42

No; think about it. You need 41 digits to write in base 42. 42 in base
42 is '10'....

anyone care to try for sexegesimal?

...which I suppose you really know, because sexagesimal requires
inventing a system of 59 digits unless you use the way they did it in
Babylon, which results in the trivial '0,42'.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

Active8 · Apr 1, 2004

On Thu, 1 Apr 2004 21:20:49 +0100, John Woodgate wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that Active8 <reply2group@ndbbm.net
wrote (in <jynzze9lpady.dlg@news.individual.net&gt about 'Life the
Universe and Time', on Thu, 1 Apr 2004:
On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 19:45:32 GMT, Bob Stephens wrote:

On Thu, 1 Apr 2004 20:29:09 +0100, John Woodgate wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that JeffM <jeffm_@email.com> wrote (in
f8b945bc.0404011054.527e07c8@posting.google.com&gt about 'Life the
Universe and Time', on Thu, 1 Apr 2004:
42

XLII

101010

0x2a

052

1 base 42

No; think about it. You need 41 digits to write in base 42. 42 in base
42 is '10'....

right. oops.

anyone care to try for sexegesimal?

..which I suppose you really know, because sexagesimal requires
inventing a system of 59 digits unless you use the way they did it in
Babylon, which results in the trivial '0,42'.

I think sexegesimal was alternating 6s and 60s or 6s and 10s

--
Best Regards,
Mike

Tim Auton · Apr 1, 2004

Active8 <reply2group@ndbbm.net> wrote:

On Thu, 1 Apr 2004 21:20:49 +0100, John Woodgate wrote:
[snip]
anyone care to try for sexegesimal?

..which I suppose you really know, because sexagesimal requires
inventing a system of 59 digits unless you use the way they did it in
Babylon, which results in the trivial '0,42'.

I think sexegesimal was alternating 6s and 60s or 6s and 10s

Shirley, sexygesimal was alternating 6s and 9s.

Tim
--
Love is a travelator.

Clifford Heath · Apr 1, 2004

Active8 wrote:

42
XLII
101010
0x2a
052
1 base 42

111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 (base 1)

Ken Taylor · Apr 2, 2004

"Clifford Heath" <cjh-nospam@nospaManagesoft.com> wrote in message
news:1080865446.703652@excalibur.osa.com.au...

Active8 wrote:
42
XLII
101010
0x2a
052
1 base 42

111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 (base 1)

Wouldn't Base 1 only have 0 as a digit?

Ken

Active8 · Apr 2, 2004

On Fri, 2 Apr 2004 13:01:35 +1200, Ken Taylor wrote:

"Clifford Heath" <cjh-nospam@nospaManagesoft.com> wrote in message
news:1080865446.703652@excalibur.osa.com.au...
Active8 wrote:
42
XLII
101010
0x2a
052
1 base 42

ok 10 base 42

111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 (base 1)

Wouldn't Base 1 only have 0 as a digit?

Ken

now were getting somewhere. I'm not sure exactly where.
--
Best Regards,
Mike

Ken Taylor · Apr 2, 2004

"Active8" <reply2group@ndbbm.net> wrote in message
news:d5f9iopksyzb.dlg@news.individual.net...

On Fri, 2 Apr 2004 13:01:35 +1200, Ken Taylor wrote:

"Clifford Heath" <cjh-nospam@nospaManagesoft.com> wrote in message
news:1080865446.703652@excalibur.osa.com.au...
Active8 wrote:
42
XLII
101010
0x2a
052
1 base 42

ok 10 base 42

111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 (base 1)

Wouldn't Base 1 only have 0 as a digit?

Ken

now were getting somewhere. I'm not sure exactly where.
--
Best Regards,
Mike

Actually, thinking about it (not too hard, the barbeque is firing up!) '1'
could still be the zero representation, but you still don't have a
representation of anything other than zero or it's not base 1.

More beer.......

Ken

robin.pain@tesco.net · Apr 2, 2004

Active8 <reply2group@ndbbm.net> wrote in message news:<1shmhcrrvmnnd$.dlg@news.individual.net>...

On Thu, 1 Apr 2004 12:10:57 +0100, John Woodgate wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that robin.pain@tesco.net
robin.pain@tesco.net> wrote (in <bd24a397.0404010252.2ea6d795@posting.g
oogle.com&gt about 'Life the Universe and Time', on Thu, 1 Apr 2004:

and again you have the whole universe i.e. nothing, the vacuum that is
nothing and everything at the same time.

And what useful deductions can you make from that? Use the widest
possible definition of 'useful' that doesn't include 'delude people as
to the magnitude of one's erudition'.

That the OP's tripping?

Maybe, I thought it was April the first.

Robin

John Woodgate · Apr 2, 2004

I read in sci.electronics.design that Active8 <reply2group@ndbbm.net>
wrote (in <16rw2y8bkywvf.dlg@news.individual.net&gt

about 'Life the
Universe and Time', on Thu, 1 Apr 2004:

anyone care to try for sexegesimal?

..which I suppose you really know, because sexagesimal requires
inventing a system of 59 digits unless you use the way they did it in
Babylon, which results in the trivial '0,42'.

I think sexegesimal was alternating 6s and 60s or 6s and 10s

Well, I Googled for it, and it appears that the Babylonians wrote
sexagesimal in the same way as we write hours, minutes, seconds, or
degrees, minutes, seconds, i.e. nn, nn, nn...., where the 'nn's are
numbers from 0 to 59 written in decimal/denary. This included numbers,
or parts of numbers, less than 1.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

Active8 · Apr 2, 2004

On Fri, 2 Apr 2004 08:36:58 +0100, John Woodgate wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that Active8 <reply2group@ndbbm.net
wrote (in <16rw2y8bkywvf.dlg@news.individual.net&gt about 'Life the
Universe and Time', on Thu, 1 Apr 2004:
anyone care to try for sexegesimal?

..which I suppose you really know, because sexagesimal requires
inventing a system of 59 digits unless you use the way they did it in
Babylon, which results in the trivial '0,42'.

I think sexegesimal was alternating 6s and 60s or 6s and 10s

Well, I Googled for it, and it appears that the Babylonians wrote
sexagesimal in the same way as we write hours, minutes, seconds, or
degrees, minutes, seconds, i.e. nn, nn, nn...., where the 'nn's are
numbers from 0 to 59 written in decimal/denary. This included numbers,
or parts of numbers, less than 1.

Ok. I think there's a system I can remember the name of which
alternated between powers of 6 and whatever. I know where I read it
so I'll have to flip through that book again sometime. It might have
been a sumerian system.
--
Best Regards,
Mike

JeffM · Apr 2, 2004

Shirley, sexygesimal was alternating 6s and 9s.
Tim Auton

It would been so much better had you said
Surely...

allowing the response
....and DON'T call me Shirley.

KR Williams · Apr 4, 2004

In article <1080865446.703652@excalibur.osa.com.au>, cjh-
nospam@nospaManagesoft.com says...

Active8 wrote:
42
XLII
101010
0x2a
052
1 base 42

111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 (base 1)

Oh my no, that doesn't work.

111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 (base 1) is still '1'.

1^41 + 1^40 + 1^39 + ... + 1^0 = 1

One may be the loneliest number because it's the most useless as
a base since the number zero. ...or something like that...

--
Keith

Life the Universe and Time

robin.pain@tesco.net

Guest

John Woodgate

Guest

Bob Stephens

Guest

Active8

Guest

JeffM

Guest

John Woodgate

Guest

Bob Stephens

Guest

Active8

Guest

John Woodgate

Guest

Active8

Guest

Tim Auton

Guest

Clifford Heath

Guest

Ken Taylor

Guest

Active8

Guest

Ken Taylor

Guest

robin.pain@tesco.net

Guest

John Woodgate

Guest

Active8

Guest

JeffM

Guest

KR Williams

Guest

Log in

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor